Archers thread #201: Tempting fête in Ambridge? Free entry to discuss The Archers here!

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

Thank you, @PseudoBadger, for kicking off this long, long series of Archers threads.

All views on The Archers welcome here! New blood welcomed, and of course we are always delighted to welcome back former or occasional listeners/posters. We don't all agree on all points, although we do mostly try to be civil about it. Most of us are posting tongue in cheek a lot of the time, so don't worry about revealing that you'd love to administer Bert's mucus medicine, or other unusual views.

Spoilers: not on this thread, please! We don't wait for the omnibus to discuss the weeknight episodes, but we do try our best to avoid cross-contamination from https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/radio_addicts/5538836-the-archers-spoilers-thread-12-cant-wait-for-702pm-join-us-here, where spoilers are positively welcomed!

For newer listeners, lurkers or those who just have no idea what we're talking about, @DadDadDad has created this useful thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/radio_addicts/3557323-For-Archers-fans-a-guide-to-acronyms-on-the-long-running-discussion-threads-and-any-other-meta-thread-questions-you-may-have - BOOP point for him! (See thread for explanation.)

There's a fair amount of stuff going on at the moment but I don't feel inspired to say anything more about any of it for now. Over to you - I hope you all have more enthusiasm than I do!

I thought this too, because of Monty's odd behaviour at the fête in refusing to get out of the car. If he'd licked the "meat" (after another dog did the mauling) his DNA would be on it. Maybe he saw the actual culprit at the pet show and was spooked by this. There seems to be a consensus that he is guilty but - like Lynda and Khalil - I simply just don't want to believe that. What if he's put down then it comes out that another dog actually was responsible?
And I agree about Ruth and David, yes they had a traumatic experience but that does not make them any less horrible a pair.

I'm hating this storyline about poor Monty.

And I bet Carole Boyd hates having to play it aswell.

Hasn't Lynda had enough upset in her life FFS?

Losing Scruff was traumatic enough.

All this talk about David & Ruth being "sensible" about Monty (presumably meaning let him live) but who's paying for the sheep and lambs? D&R's insurance? Linda & Robert? Sheep aren't just a couple of quid and farming is not generally a high margin business where you can just "lose" a dozen.

The Dopeys' insurance, I expect. It's a horrible SL for many reasons.
Lynda and Robert will have pet insurance for Monty, I expect, but I don't know what that might cover.

If only Monty had savaged Pip instead.

I feel Fiona Mountain has one too many letters.

I simply just don't want to believe that. What if he's put down then it comes out that another dog actually was responsible?

I hate this SL too. Yes, it’s an awareness campaign but I hate the thought of a geriatric much loved pet being pts. Sort of feels like a cheap shot by the SWs at emotional manipulation. The Matt Haig book felt the same.

Maybe the person arguing with Ed about the combine has a dog and it was that dog that did the savaging, then poor Monty was out for a walk chanced upon some feasty snacks.

Poor Monty will be sacrificed in vain and there will be another sheep worrying event and they'll trace that DNA to the savaged Brookfield sheep somehow.

Monty's remains will be buried and the field renamed Beddgelert Montysnellgrave in remembrance of the tragic wronged dog.

I have never bonded with Monty the way I did with Scruff, so I say to him "Do the crime, do the time" ... Monty's time, in this case, being rather brief.

Hardly poor Monty. He savaged and killed sheep. I'm not a farmer but I think it's a very good storyline, shows that any dog, however much its owners think it's lovely, is capable of killing sheep, just like Alistair said.

I was surprised that there is such a thing as community resolution, I assumed he would be put down. I hope Ruth and David stick to their decision not to have resolution, and Monty is put down or permanently rehomed.

I actually think if they wanted to show the dangerous possibilities of dogs they should have done a story where a child was mauled by a dog.

I think it's perfectly normal to have photos on Ruth's phone. Mine are all on my phone, and Ruth would have needed them for both the police and the insurance claim.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable for David and Ruth to insist Monty is destroyed. Once a dog has massacred livestock there's no way to guarantee he won't do it again. It's just too high a risk.

As for Ruth talking about "innocent animals" - that was in response to idiot Khalil going on about poor innocent Monty. She had a point - those sheep were just living their best lives grazing happily until horrifically killed.

Isn’t everyone’s cloud full?

Scruff’s disappearance (presumed dead) was über traumatic!

No. Don't use it. Back up to my own drive.

We could yet have a child mauling dog, especially if it wasn't Monty. Started out with lambs and sheep, moves on to Martha and Rosie...

All my photos are on my 'phone. No idea about the Cloud. Mine should be called the Clod.

But, we're not yet sure it was Monty!

Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Legally we do, because of the DNA evidence. Until another doberman turns up in the village and Monty is shown to be Beddgelert, he is guilty.

Time will tell...!

I mean, he'd be Gelert, not Gelert's grave, but anyway.

Wouldn't the DNA tests have shown that some of the doberman DNA didn't match Monty's, if there was another dog involved?

I'm sure it will all come out in the wash.

I would put money on it not being Monty!

Agree… it does seem unlikely that only Monty’s would show up unless he had killed at least that sheep.

And anyway… a dog that has had w ‘taste’ is unlikely to be reliable around sheep again.

It’s a miserable storyline.

Where is the good news we desperately need?

Or if we must be miserable, let’s talk about what farmers are really going through with the droughts. I don’t want to hear that Ed has reassured Martyn that everything is going great with the contract with no reference to the current challenges.

I just wish this hadn’t happened to Lynda, who for her faults, is a responsible owner.
She has been through a lot with GG and has no children of her own, (which although may be her own valid choice, it does elevate the importance of pets to my mind.)

I really don’t want Monty destroyed but anything less feels like a cop out.

But i think it has to happen to someone who is a responsible dog owner, to make the point that it can happen with any dog.

It’s inevitable though, that if the SWs are to give Lynda her fair share of trauma, it will concern aspects of her life that are as important to her as another character’s children. Her self-confidence; her marital relationship; her animals …